tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post114220415039430774..comments2019-11-30T00:16:51.973-05:00Comments on The Playgoer: SemanticsPlaygoerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02994724588504353485noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-1142238881754531872006-03-13T03:34:00.000-05:002006-03-13T03:34:00.000-05:00I can't imagine the possibility of demonstrations ...I can't imagine the possibility of demonstrations outside or inside the theater had anything to do with Nicola's decision to withdraw "My Name..." from current scheduling. The history of presentation of Rachel Corrie art suggests otherwise.<BR/><BR/>The first full-length treatment of Corrie, "The Skies are Weeping," was cancelled by the composer because of explicit threats b y Zionists and Christian Zionists to performers and because of a hostile public meeting. The presenters didn't cancel or postpone, the composer did, after being told his student performers would endure sanctions. There was pamphleteering at the public meeting from several viewpoints, but it was done tastefully.<BR/><BR/>That was in April, 2004. Since then, many artists have mounted successful events about Corrie. In NYC, composer Paul Crabtree's "An American Persephone," which focused upon Corrie, was peformed without negative reaction last year. Bread and Puppets Theater has mounted a Rachel Corrie production designed for young people and put it on tour. Rude Guerilla Theater's players have described to me "an original play we did last year [which] featured a monologue about Rachel Corrie that pretty much brought down the house, so she's really special to us."<BR/><BR/>Many songwriters have presented credible works about Ms. Corrie, most notably, Dave Rovics.<BR/><BR/>When "My Name is Rachel Corrie" was presented in London in 2005, demonstrations were civil. Jews demonstrated in favor of the play, as well as against. When I went on October 29, I saw Jewish friends in the audience.<BR/><BR/>In November, 2005, when my cantata, "The Skies are Weeping," was finally presented after cancellations in Anchorage and NYC, demonstrators as well as pampleteers outside the venue were cordial. One demonstration against - two for the performance. The Bobbies were bored, some wishing they could be on the other side of Mare Street, where the first night of an ale sampling contest was about to begin.<BR/><BR/>All these performances and productions have involved Jewish performers. Some have been created and inspired by Jewish artists. "My Name is Rachel Corrie" is a case in point.<BR/><BR/>A viable group of young dramatists and actors in London is now soliciting 10-minute plays about the NYTW's decision and its consequences!<BR/><BR/>I doubt NYTW will be able to ever mount this small play. They certainly deserve no help getting it put up on their stage at this point, do they?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12657288.post-1142219448310993152006-03-12T22:10:00.000-05:002006-03-12T22:10:00.000-05:00It's not a bad theory, but it leaves out the fact ...It's not a bad theory, but it leaves out the fact (at least if the Royal Court people are to be believed) that tickets were already on sale and flights had already been booked.<BR/><BR/>Stepping back, though, I think we're now at a critical point in the development of this story: I'd argue that NYTW has not <I>yet</I> done irreparable damage to its good name and its standing in the artistic community. But, three weeks into the story, the window for action is quickly closing. <BR/><BR/>The complicating factor, of course, is that simply rescheduling the play for May, after its West End run, may no longer be possible: The Royal Court may not sanction it. (Can you blame them?)<BR/><BR/>But that's a decision for the Royal Court. How NYTW comes out of this episode, I'd argue, will depend upon how decisively the company abandons its current "what's the big deal" posture and upon the kind of discussion it has with its constituents about what's transpired over the last few weeks.<BR/><BR/>And that will require a few steps.<BR/><BR/>First, NYTW needs to acknowledge in the clearest possible terms that cancelling a production because of the possiblity that it might offend external critics and theatre outsiders is a bad thing. Period. No backtracking, no gibberish about "contextualization."<BR/><BR/>Second, NYTW needs to put forward a timetable for producing RACHEL CORRIE at the earliest possible date. If the Royal Court won't allow the production to go forward, fine. But NYTW needs to show its constituents that it's doing everything possible to make a production happen.<BR/><BR/>Third, NYTW needs to engage in a dialogue with its constituents about all the questions the last three weeks have raised, and how things might be handled different in the future. A panel discussion featuring Jim Nicola, Wayne Kabak, Oskar Eustis, John Weidman and Christopher Shinn would be a good start. All of the theatre's associate artists, subscribers and donors should be invited, and plenty of time should be allocated for audience questions.<BR/><BR/>To my mind, taking those three steps would be enough: NYTW would emerge from this debacle more or less unscathed. The story would end up as a footnote rather than a defining moment.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it is far easier to do nothing: To ignore pesky critics and to assume that those who have kept silent endorse the theatre's stance. But if NYTW takes that approach, it will be paying for its inaction for years. <BR/><BR/>Kabak and Nicola need to realize (and quickly) that the majority of those writing about and speaking out about NYTW's behavior are doing so not because they want to see the theatre crumble but because they want to save the company from the consequences of a terrible, reputation-bruising mistake.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com